AMARJIT KAUR Vs. SARTAZ SINGH S O GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Amarjit Kaur filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent-Sartaz Singh on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari, claiming maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month. She alleged that she was married to respondent on 19-11-1989 and that soon after the marriage, the respondent started maltreating her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. She further alleged that on 23-7-1990 she was beaten by the respondent and was driven out of the house. According to the petitioner, she has since then been living with her brother and that the respondent never cared for her and also refused to resume matrimonial relationship with her. The petitioner further claimed that she had no source of income to maintain herself. The respondent appeared through counsel and made a statement that he has no objection if a sum of Rs. 300/- per month was fixed as maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded the petitioner Rs. 300/- permensem as maintenance payable by the respondent from the date of filing of the petition.

(2.) The respondent who did not have any objection to the award to the maintenance filed a criminal revision (No. 48 of 1994) questioning the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in so far as it directed that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of petition. He contended that maintenance should have been allowed from the date of the order and not from the date of the filing of the petition, and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had not given any reasons for doing so. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in Arun Kumar v. Kamlesh Kumari, 1989(1) RCR 233, Arun Kumar v. Smt. Rama Sharma, 1991(1) RCR 151 and also the decision of the Allahbad High Court in Dharmindra Kumar v. Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi, 1990(2) RCR 583. But the petitioner contended that the respondent appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after a long time and thus harassed the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in granting maintenance from the date of the petition claiming maintenance. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, who heard this criminal revision agreed with the respondent and held that when the respondent appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he raised no objection for the grant of maintenance, but the petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of her case and, therefore, the grant of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition is not sustainable. Therefore, he modified the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by granting maintenance from the date of order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking restoration of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the points that arise for consideration in this petition are :-